Brother says accused told him he was going to kill his wife

Yvonne Leroux

(LINDSAY) The brother of accused murderer Jack Hale testified that his brother told him in an angry telephone conversation that he was going to kill his estranged wife.
Mr. Hale stands accused of first degree murder and using a firearm in the commission of an indictable offence in the shooting death of his estranged wife Yvonne Leroux at Riverwood Trailer Park near Lindsay, Sept. 18, 2008.
When James “Jim” Hale approached the witness box in Lindsay court Wednesday (Nov. 21), he did not look at or acknowledge his brother in any way. In fact, as he proceeded through his testimony, he did not look at his brother at all.
During Crown attorney Rebecca Griffin’s chief examination, Jim said his brother had called him, upset and yelling after receiving an order from family court that had ruled in Ms Leroux’s favour after Jack had not responded to legal documents or shown up for a court date.
“In his anger, he said he was going to kill her,” Jim testified, adding that he asked his brother if he wanted to spend the rest of his life in jail.
Jim said, that again in anger, Jack had said “I don’t care.”
But after some more conversation, and advising his brother to calm down and sleep on it because everything would seem better in the morning, Jim testified that he felt his brother had calmed down after getting his anger off his chest, and he didn’t take the threat seriously.
“When we hung up, he was fine.”
Jim was unable to place the exact date of the conversation, although Ms Griffin produced Jack’s cell phone records, which recorded a phone call from Jack to Jim’s cell phone on Sept. 10, 2008. Under cross-examination, Jim testified that being so long ago, he couldn’t remember the contents of any specific phone call listed in the records.
Defence lawyer Tom Balka spent a significant portion of his cross-examination questioning Jim as to why he did not tell police about the angry phone call from Jack, when they came to talk to him the day of the murder, when they were still looking for Jack. The lawyer was persistent in asking for specific wording of what was said and questioning how Jim would know exactly what document had angered Jack, given that it was a telephone conversation and he did not see it himself, but Jim stuck to his assertion that it was after family court had ruled in Ms Leroux’s favour because Jack had not shown up in court.
Mr. Balka then tried a different line of questioning, quoting statements Jim made to police.
“This is off the record, don’t put this down, but I hope he spends the rest of his life in jail,” the lawyer read from a transcript of Jim’s police interview, clearly making the witness uncomfortable.
“We just don’t want him out of there. He’s where he belongs right now,” another portion read, with Jim explaining to police that he didn’t want it to get back to his brother that he had said those things, because then he may cut him off as power of attorney and the associated financial benefits that go along with that, including money to help take care of their mother.
Mr. Balka suggested that Jim “suddenly” remembered the telephone conversation almost four years after the fact simply because he wanted to put his brother away for the rest of his life. Mr. Balka further tried to discredit the witness, by quoting another point in the police interview in which Jim said he would lie to Jack and say he was subpoenaed to bring in paperwork of Jack’s, trying to establish that he was willing to lie. Jim maintained that he was just trying to co-operate with police.
Back in the chief examination, Jim testified that shortly after the separation of Jack and Ms Leroux, he spoke to his brother who told him that Ms Leroux was originally only asking for $5,000 and the couple’s trailer.
“He was very adamant not to give her that,” Jim told the jury, adding that his brother said Ms Leroux’s Legal Aid was running out.
“He was going to wait it out,” he said, adding that he believed his brother thought she would get nothing once her Legal Aid ran out, even though Jim advised his brother to just give Ms Leroux the trailer and money to get it over with.
Jim testified that after his brother was arrested, he became Jack’s power of attorney and therefore has taken care of his finances ever since, including the process through family court. While he could say exactly how much money was ultimately determined to be owed to Ms Leroux’s estate, he did say that his home, where his mother lived as well, had to sold to make payments, and his mother came to live with him.
During cross-examination, Mr. Balka pointed out that there was no contract written up of Ms Leroux’s request of $5,000 and the trailer and talked about the brother’s relationship, getting Jim to admit that in some ways he considered Jack to be irresponsible, for example letting his mail pile up without opening it. Mr. Balka also questioned Jim as to some inconsistencies in his police statements about where his mother was at the time of the murder - he testified earlier that she was at his place in Lindsay after he picked her up the day before - to which Jim admitted that some of his memory has been affected by the passage of time and that during the interview he may have been confused about dates, adding that he did have a current recollection of picking his mother up and bringing her to Lindsay Sept. 17, 2008.
During Ms Griffin’s re-examination of Jim, he explained his comments about wanting his brother to be in jail for the rest of his life.
“I’m very angry and upset and hurt with what he’s put us through,” adding that he said those things out of anger and didn’t mean them.
He also maintained that he has tried to be as truthful as possible with police over the four-year process and said he never made anything up.
“I was just trying to be honest.”
It was clarified that at the time of his first interview with police, the day of the murder, he did not even know that Ms Leroux had been killed, just that there was an incident and police were looking for Jack.
“You’re going through so much at the time and you don’t know what’s relevant and what’s not,” he testified, also saying that he simply answered the questions police asked him and did not introduce new topics he thought the officer should ask him about.
The next witness was a co-worker of Ms Leroux’s at what was the Whitby Mental Health Centre. The co-worker testified that he was a heavy duty cleaner while Ms Leroux worked in the canteen in the same area. He testified that one day while he was in the back of the canteen, he heard yelling and came out to find Ms. Leroux arguing with a man, with both parties swearing. He remembered the man, who Ms Leroux later identified as an ex, saying something about Ms Leroux not getting half of his pension. The witness testified that at one point the man lunged at the canteen counter toward Ms Leroux with his hands outstretched, at which point he jumped over the counter and escorted the man out of the building.
Mr. Balka pressed the witness as to why he never reported the incident or went to the police even after Ms Leroux was murdered, and poked holes in some of his testimony about the type of vehicle he saw the man approach in the parking lot to leave as well as his description which did not describe Jack as having grey hair or wearing glasses - both of which he does. The witness said he couldn’t be sure of some of the details because of the passage of four years between the incident and when police approached him and questioned him about it. Mr. Balka tried to further discredit the witness by pointing out that he had a record for minor criminal offences in 1982 and 1992.